December 15, 2010

In the latest brouhaha over new Nixon tapes, I saw something in passing by Slate writer Jack Shafer that is illustrative of the most fundamental weakness in modern thought. So, let me set the stage for a bit before getting to the key bit that wouldn't even be noticed by a non-crimethinker.

From his throne in hell, Richard Nixon commands our attention once again with newly released White House tapes from February and March 1973 that drop another tanker load of piss and bile on Jews. ...

After recounting various private remarks of Nixon about Jews, Shafer turns to consider the arguments of Nixon's Jewish defenders:

Nixon has never lacked Jewish defenders. Just six months ago, writer Ben Stein, the son of Herbert Stein, the head of the Council of Economic Advisers under Nixon, pooh-poohed the Jew-counting story that Noah has so determinedly tracked. Wrote Stein:

Now, bear in mind, Nixon was by far the best friend the Jewish people have ever had since Abraham. He had the most Jewish appointees to high offices, the most pro-Israel foreign and defense policy in history, saved Israel in the Yom Kippur War, put Russia at bay about helping Egypt in that war—was just the best friend Jews have ever had, including Jews themselves.

Alas, being actively pro-Israel doesn't automatically exonerate Nixon from anti-Semitism. For one thing, he and Kissinger were playing a global board game with the Soviets in those years, and the Soviets were backing Egypt. An Israeli defeat would have been an American defeat, too. For another, Nixon didn't want to go down in history as the American president who "lost" Israel and put the Jewish people in peril.

True, but Nixon and his chief domestic policy adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan of 1969-70 were also simultaneously playing a domestic board game with New York intellectuals in those years. Nixon and Moynihan had long conversations in 1969 about how they could promote a self-conscious neoconservative tendency among Moynihan's fellow New York intellectuals. Portraying Israel as a crucial bastion of the Cold War (a position that Ike and, perhaps, JFK would have regarded as objectively silly) was intended by Nixon and Moynihan to encourage at least some intellectual Jews to take the Cold War more personally, just as the British government had found it expedient to issue the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to appeal to Jewish opinion during Britain's struggle with Germany and Austria. Nixon's considered judgment was that he didn't need all the Jewish intellectuals on his side, just some of them, and he devoted a lot of effort to wooing them. As we can tell by reading Commentary and The Weekly Standard in 2010, Nixon and Moynihan had a fair degree of success with with wooing a vocal minority of Jewish intellectuals toward supporting an aggressive American foreign policy.

To be open-minded about Nixon, let's go ahead and put his support of Israel in the asset side of his anti-Semitism account.

What then to make of his long list of Jewish appointees? In a newspaper interview last year promoting his book, Why Are Jews Liberals?, Norman Podhoretz beat Stein to the punch on Nixon's defense of Israel but added that Nixon "was the kind of anti-Semite who thought that Jews were smarter than everybody else. That's why he had Kissinger. That's why he had Arthur Burns, Herb Stein. … A lot of Nixon's anti-Semitism is talk. ... His anti-Semitism consisted of resentment of Jews for being liberals and hating him. It's not the traditional kind of anti-Semitism." [Emphasis added.]

Podhoretz is half, maybe three-quarters right. Nixon did seem to believe Jews were exceptionally smart, although these views were obviously colored by the fact that most of his encounters with Jews in his adult life were with successful Jews. Did he similarly extrapolate from his encounters with successful Catholics that they were brilliant, too? Mormons? Cubans? Armenians?

This last paragraph is worth re-reading. Shafer is attempting to first construct, then debunk a socially acceptable Occam's Butterknife defense of Nixon's opinion that American Jews tend to be smart. Let me flesh out the argument:

How could Nixon have ever come to the conclusion that Jews tend to be above average in intelligence? Well, perhaps he was an unwitting victim of selection bias [as outlined at length by novelist Michael Chabon in the NYT last June], which caused him to be unintentionally wrong. See, Nixon employed brilliant Jews like Kissinger, so he must have wrongly inferred from how smart Kissinger was that Jews on average were above average in intelligence. On the other hand, he also employed brilliant Catholics like Moynihan. And yet he does not appear to have inferred from long talks with Moynihan that Catholics were notably above average in intelligence. Therefore, Nixon can't be convicted of merely a lesser charge of Anti-Semitism by Error. Nixon was instead guilty of Anti-Semitism in the Highest [contemporary] Degree: noticing that American Jews tend to be smarter than average! Case closed!

Of course, Occam's Razor would suggest that just maybe Nixon, who was on a national ticket five times, winning four times, actually had a decent empirical grasp of social realities. And, if Nixon had had any questions about average Jewish intelligence, he could have asked Moynihan, who, with Moynihan's co-author Nathan Glazer, was academia's leading expert on white ethnics.

Now, you could say that Shafer's assumption that Nixon noticing the overwhelming evidence for Jews being smarter on average renders him odious is just an example of the contemporary aversion to realistic thought epitomized by how calling something a "stereotype" is now assumed to automatically refute its empirical truth.

But, over the last decade and a half, the evidence keeps piling up that the Jewish IQ advantage is not just an example of what's wrong with intellectual life today, but the single most important cause for contemporary thinking going off the tracks.

While I was reading all the frenzied reaction to The Bell Curve sixteen years ago, I noticed that not much of it was actually coming from blacks. Thomas Sowell had a response, we know now that Barack Obama broke his Vow of Silence to comment on NPR upon The Bell Curve, and so forth, but those were mostly the exceptions. There really aren't that many black intellectuals that other intellectuals pay attention to.

Those most vocally enraged by The Bell Curve were white intellectuals, especially Jews. To them, the assertion that the average black IQ was equal to the average American IQ serves as the outer bulwark defending the inner sanctum: the belief that the average Jewish American IQ is equal to the average American IQ. If you let the peasants realize that blacks are on average could be less smart, eventually they'll figure out that Jews on average could be more smart, and then they'll be coming for us with pitchforks!

Of course, this dominant belief about smarts held by contemporary intellectuals is about 99% stupid. Practically everybody in America already realizes that Jews tend to be smarter. And, guess what, they're okay with it. Most Americans appreciate Jewish intelligence.

Consider the example of, say, Richard Nixon, a powerful and congenitally angry man who was well aware of the facts about Jewish intelligence. What was his response to this knowledge?

He searched out ways to do more favors for Jews.

So, the central, underlying flaw in the edifice of current intellectualizing is pointless.

On the other hand, an intellectual climate that says, in effect, you can't be a genuine intellectual unless you publicly humiliate yourself by saying things like Nixon must have assumed Jews tend to be smart because he only met smart Jews has a lot of usefulness as a loyalty test. It's like a fraternity initiation in which they'll only let you in if you run around campus dressed as a marshmallow. It shows how much you want to be one of us. You won't let self-respect get in your way.

185 comments:

To them, the assertion that the average black IQ was equal to the average American IQ serves as the outer bulwark defending the inner sanctum: the belief that the average Jewish American IQ is equal to the average American IQ.

I don't buy it. More likely this is an outgrowth of the atheism that pervades intellectual circles.

Without a belief in the soul intelligence becomes the measure of man. Intellectuals in the US, including the Jewish ones, are for the most part atheists, and they don't have a way to square the equality circle if IQ is shown to be different across different groups of people.

Eric, contra your thesis, why are Jews devoting to "squar[ing] the equality circle"? Atheism doesn't explain that. A belief in human inequality is perfectly compatible with atheism (as is the reverse, since atheism is not a positive position); and isn't that one of the religious critiques of atheism - that it can lead to rejecting man's equality since it rejects the God in whose eyes they are equal?

Steve, you're tired. One can tell from the writing in this post. Take Christmas week off, for Santa's sake - it's tough for us readers to keep up with your Niagra of excellent posts already. Head for the eggnog. Merry Christmas!

I think the slate article is more indicative of the insecurities of Jack Shafer than of anything else. We all know that Nixon was a rather unpleasant guy. We also know of this attitude towards Jews. So what? 40 years later and nearly 20 years after his death, who cares what Nixon thought.

For every intelligent Jew I've ever come across I've also met one who was either deeply neurotic, autistic, a mental case or really just downright retarded. There are plenty of dysfunctional Jews out there; they're not all MENSA members you know. Lot of contrasts within their group, judging from my own experience.

Well, yes, that was my point. The reason atheist intellectuals are so sensitive about intelligence is because they believe that's what makes them better than the rest of us. They believe they're more intelligent.

But they're also terrified of being accused of racism. So there's an essential tension here - intelligence as the measure of man and also the races are equal. Now, for a religious person there's the concept of soul, which makes us special as individuals. But there's also the concept of sin - even if you're more intelligent than I am, I can still be a better person by living up to a moral code.

But there's nothing like that for atheists. So the one thing they will not, can not accept is a difference in IQ between the races. If such a difference were to exist that would either make them racists or it would mean the attribute upon which they've built their own sense of self-worth can't be viewed as singularly important.

Intellectuals in the US, including Jewish ones, are for the most part atheists, and they don't have a way to the square the equality circle if IQ is shown to be different across different groups of people.

Change atheists to liberals and the mystery of Jewish intellectuals' denial of IQ group differentials is solved.

The thing about Jews is that they seem to be innate sophists. They are very good at making good arguments but seem to care less about making true arguments. Combine that with the fact that they are extremely self-righteous, in a sort of feminine way I would say,and what do you have: a self-righteous sophist! Now that's somethin! I think it was Mencken who said the Jews are a great people...but so unpleasant. Personally, I owe a lot to the Jews, so don't get me wrong. And another thing: I have met five (medical) Dr. Shapiros in my life, and all of them outstanding professionals. Are the Shapiros like a super clan within the Jewish tribe, does anyone know?

David, I think Eric's point is not that atheism leads to a belief in equality, but that the only way that atheism is compatible with the concept that all humans have equal worth is to advocate equality of abilities.

In other words, one American value is the belief in the equal worth of human beings. Without the belief in some sort of soul or inherent value that we each possess, the only thing left to compare humans by is our abilities.

Well Steve, I'm sure you know a lot more Jews than I do (they're thin on the ground out here in the midwest) and they may have told you, for a fact that this convoluted we-can't-let-them-think-the-schvartzes-are-dumkopfs-or-we'll-be-next obsession is indeed why a bunch of famous American Jews didn't like "The Bell Curve". But at the moment I have my doubts; it seems to me that these Jews were just going with the flow - just as they were when they supported the Civil Rights movement.

Black people do not prosper in non-black societies. By our standards they prosper even less in their own societies - but that is the point: they're different from the rest of the species and live their lives in a different way, with different priorities.

But as long as black people are not YOUR problem, you don't have to admit that reality. So their poverty and criminality, lower life expectancy, higher disease rates, unemployed males and single mothers - and of course, their incapacity for education, and low IQ scores, are all a convenient excuse to feel morally superior to the Whites who actually have to deal with Blacks. It's their fault for Keeping the Black Man Down.

More particularly, it provides a permanent and powerful target for propaganda.

The North vs. the South in the mid 1800's, the Soviets vs. America in the mid 1900's, the whole world vs. South Africa in the 1980's - it's the same story, every time. So I have to wonder if the Jews in this country really have some idiosyncratic reason for detesting the idea that Blacks have lower IQ's for biological reasons. Why can't it just be, well, that they like to look down on the Evil Whites (whose identities, and methods are indeed becoming more and more elusive) that are Keeping the Black Man Down.

After all, it seems to me that a number of Jewish intelligensia are willing to admit, in a cagey sort of way (like Michael Chabon) that they consider themselves smarter than us - but not so many are willing to admit that Blacks are not very smart. So it seems like these two ideas - Jewish intelligence and Black intelligence - are not so inextricably linked as you claim.

How was Nixon's anti-semitism "untraditional"? Very few anti-semites think Jews are stupid - the Nazis would have agreed that Jews have higher IQs than Germans - Nazis actually distrusted smart people as a rule.

Nixon was no more anti-Jewish than other members of the so-called Greatest Generation. He got his bigotry with his mother's milk. I will not excuse him for it. Did Nixon help Israel? Not until many many Jews died at the hands of Soviet-backed and trained Eqyptian and Syrian invaders. Read the histories, in October 1973, Nixon was drunk and incoherent. Henry Kissinger (may grown in the earth like an onion - upside down) and Alexander Haig handled the Yom Kippur War. You might want to recall that we were toe-to-toe with the USSR and nuclear war loomed.

I've heard remarks like Nixon's the whole of my life. So it is to be a Jew in the US or in England, or Israel. Until the New Testament is revised, until Shakespeare is purged, until Dickens is edited, these attitudes will continue.

I get worried when I read stuff like this. It makes me think of the Holodomor.

Portraying Israel as a crucial bastion of the Cold War (a position that Ike and, perhaps, JFK would have regarded as objectively silly) was intended by Nixon and Moynihan to encourage at least some intellectual Jews to take the Cold War more personally...

Steve, you have that solipsist approach to foreign policy so typical of liberals. Only America is the actor, the other side never gets a voice; and, of course, everything America does is done for internal consumptions. But the truth is this: a place is a crucial bastion in a war when both sides believe it is. Ike and JFK may have considered that idea silly but Brezhnev certainly did not. Did he too want to encourage Jews to take the Cold War seriously? Somehow I don't think so.

There is a very simple reason both sides regarded Israel as a crucial battlefield and it has to do with the aftermath of the 1967 war. Suddenly, the Soviets got a preview of what an actual hot war with the West might look like. That left a mark. The Soviet needed to get even and naturally, American had to prevent them from achieving that. The rest followed.

But as long as black people are not YOUR problem, you don't have to admit that reality. So their poverty and criminality, lower life expectancy, higher disease rates, unemployed males and single mothers - and of course, their incapacity for education, and low IQ scores, are all a convenient excuse to feel morally superior to the Whites who actually have to deal with Blacks.

***eventually they'll figure out that Jews on average could be more smart, and then they'll be coming for us with pitchforks!***

Steve,

I think the concern is probably more along the lines that people will discriminate unfairly against groups that don't score so well.

Have you read this article in NY Magazine about the Harpending/Henry & Cochran paper?

"So. Is this study good for the Jews? I talk to Abe Foxman, legendary head of the Anti-Defamation League, whose life’s mission is the pristine upkeep of the Jewish reputation. His answer surprises me. “If it’s a genetic condition,” he says, “it’s not for us to embrace or reject. It is what it is, and that’s the way the genetic cookie crumbles.”

Here's what the Average American (and that includes Steve) doesn't want to accept. The Jews are smarter, and the average American is OK with that, and that's the PROBLEM!

'Cause guess what? Turning your country over to a super-smart elite minority that's more interested in "what's good for our group?" than in "what's good for the USA?" is a bad idea. And its led directly to open borders and the whole lot of other things that will spell the end of white middle America.

But you just can't get the average White Goy off this way of thinking. Hey, lets invite 20 million super-smart Asians over here, they'll be good Americans, 'cause, ahh..., well they just will! And we'll all be better off some how. And if we don't - well that's God's will. And Hey, what about those 49'ers?

And quoting Nixon's PRIVATE comments is really irrelevant. The bottom line is Nixon was NEVER willing to say a bad word about the Jews in public or do *anything* that would be considered antisemitic or anti-Israel.

He was perfectly willing to appoint Jews to the most powerful positions. So,what did his PRIVATE comments amount to? Nothing more than the grumblings and complaints of an employee who bitches about his boss in the lunch room, but who always says "Yes, boss" during the work day.

I Have not read Nixon's comments in full, but I have seen in the accounts of them that he also made statements about the Irish in the newly released transcripts.

My immediate impression was that Nixon was doing what so many of us do... we say something critical (that we genuinely believe) about one group, but then (so as to sound more objective or less prejudiced) make critical statements about our own group or a group similar to our own.

So far as I know, Nixon wasn't Irish, but by the 1960s I would guess that a Californian like him would relate to them as whites.

It was an interesting reaction; I believed that he believed what he said about Jews, but I didn't believe that he believed what he said about the Irish.

"Nixon's considered judgment was that he didn't need all the Jewish intellectuals on his side, just some of them, and he devoted a lot of effort to wooing them. As we can tell by reading Commentary and The Weekly Standard in 2010, Nixon and Moynihan had a fair degree of success with with wooing a vocal minority of Jewish intellectuals toward supporting an aggressive American foreign policy. "

The funny thing is that in defending Nixon from Schafer's ludicrously charge of anti-Semitism you've actually charged him with a far more serious version of anti-Sematism. In short, Nixon recognized that the primary loyalty of Jews is to Jews therefore, by making it in Israel's interest for the US to do well, he'd give them some small stake in the success of the United States.

Now, if Schafer wanted to convict Nixon of anti-Semitism he could point out that assumption. On the other hand, then the audience would consider that assumption. The human neurological uniformity doctrine isn't going to be questioned by anyone (at least by anyone who matters).

Now, was Nixon's assumption true or not? That's clearly the heart of the issue.

Just why did Nixon have that paranoid habit of taping absolutely everything that proceeded in the White House? - In the end he was hoisted on his own petard. Nixon always reminded me of the quintessence of 1950s coporate American businessman, you know like those old fashioned IBM men who all wore color coded blue suits.

One reason why Nixon was and is widely hated is due to the 'Christmas bombing' campaigns of the early '70s against Laos and Cambodia.(Incidentally John Lennon's 'And This is Christmas' played incessantly over this type of year is a reminder of those times). The bombings were named 'Operation Menu' for some strange reason ie Operation Breakfast, Operation, Lunch, Operation Snack, Operation Dinner etc' One can imagine Nixon and his 'good ol' boys' laughing their heads off at those titles.

Despite all his ethnic slurs, I've always doubted Nixon's own ethnicity. He doesn't look Anglo-Saxon, and although he claimed Irish ancestry, he doesn't look Irish. I've read of Albanian ancestry, which kind of figures.

The underlying question is, if they're so smart, why are they so wrong? I would submit that they're so wrong because they're so smart.

Recall the sayings "he's too smart for his own good" and "some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.". (Not to mention "pointy-headed bureaucrats who can't park a bicycle straight"!)

Catholics aren't as smart as Jews, but they figured this one out many centuries ago. It's called Original Sin.

The "sweet spot" for a nation's intelligence is probably under 110. A nation with a 120 average would almost certainly be a total wreck. Look at any college town.

As for Shapiros being a "super clan", as one commenter wondered, Nathaniel Weyl and Stefan Possony established precisely that point 50 years ago. Shapiros and Levys were the descendants of the highest-ranking priests, and their levels of accomplishment reflect that. Whereas Cohens were the generic priests, and each time one was promoted, it lowered their own average (which, nevertheless, remained above that of the goys.) An intratribal "brain drain".

this column exposes sailer as just an average online nitwit. First, let me say that IQ is baloney. IQ is basically just an indication of how many books you have read. Just like lifting weights. The more weights you lift, the more weight you can lift. The more books you have read, the higher you score on IQ tests. In general...

I say this as someone who twice scored 'genius' on standardized tests that are accepted as IQ test analogues by Mensa.

The reason that highly educated people (like 'intellectuals,' jewish or otherwise) are so rabid about the idea that IQ matters, etc, is that they are highly educated via the american higher education system. This system drums into one's brain the idea that if you accept the idea that IQ matters, then you are a racist.

And in order to prove that they are not racists, these 'intellectuals' perform these little denunciations of IQ.

The core idea I am getting to here is that higher education is propaganda, fakeleftist propaganda and neoliberal propaganda, for the most part. And the more intellectual a person is, the more propagandized.

The thing is, even lots of unsuccessful Jews are smart. Karl Marx was one. In his lifetime, he lived on handouts from capitalists he loathed. But he was brilliant(even if brilliantly wrong). And there are lots of smart Jews in showbiz who don't make the big time but you can tell they're pretty smart. I know some Jews who are 'losers' but they are smart losers. Indeed, many Jews choose to 'lose' because, like Karl Marx, they have higher expectations of themselves and won't settle for less. They choose to be loser idealists or dreamers than humdrummers.

Btw, I suppose if some guy hangs around professional athletes and takes notice that blacks are fast and strong, he must be 'racist' and misguided since his opinions are based on hanging around only around athletically successful blacks. Therefore, it's simply wrong to say blacks have an athletic advantage over non-blacks. But if all races are athletically equal, where is the Mexican-American running back or Asian-American home run king? Shouldn't they show up in the upper ranks too? (Simiarly, if Jews are not smarter than other peoples, then shouldn't the percentage of successful Jewish people be only 2% of the entire pool?)

Btw, the real problem is this ODIOUS and OBNOXIOUS term 'antisemitism' which now means any critical view of Jews. Sure, there are Nazi-like haters of Jews, but that's not what is meant by 'antisemite' these days. An antisemite is anyone opposed to Zionism or Israel, anyone critical of Jewish power and influence, anyone who speaks of a Jewish mindset or agenda, anyone who finds negative aspects of Jewish culture, indeed anyone who even notices that Jews are powerful. I would find the charge of 'antisemitism' less offensive and obnoxious IF Jews were sensitive toward other groups, restrained in their assessments of other groups, considerate to other groups, careful not to go for blanket statements and judgments, etc. But, Jewish scholars, politicians, and pundits are endlessly going on about the MUSLIM CRAZINESS, SOUTHERN WHITE PREJUDICE, CHINESE MIDDLE KINGDOM ARROGANCE, GERMAN PENCHANT FOR MASS MURDER, RUSSIAN AUTHORITARIANISM, PARANOID MENTALITY AMONG WHITE CONSERVATIVES, CATHOLIC REPRESSION, POLISH PREJUDICE, ETC. Jews can accuse us, but we can't accuse them. Jews have God complex.

Consider the hypocrisy: It's okay for Jewish thinkers to say that the evil of Soviet Communism was the rooted in traditional Russian authoritarianism(and Asiatic despotism), but it's not okay for non-Jews to say Soviet evil owed something to the radical Jewish mentality and monomania.

It's okay for Jewish thinkers to say something in the German cultural/historical DNA led to the Holocaust, but it's not okay for non-Jews to say something in the Jewish cultural mentality led to Bolshevism, gulags, destruction of 50,000 churches in Russia, and deaths of millions of Slavs.

If a Jewish guy spits in your face, and if you point out that he did, you are an 'antisemite' for daring to criticize or even take notice that a Jewish guy spat in your face.

Btw, Nixon was not a good man, but all men of his generation spoke as he did in private. Johnson and Kennedy too. Mayor Daley too. Mike Royko wrote columns with such views even up to the 90s. Furthermore, IN PRIVATE, Jews--even liberal ones--say the same shit about other people. I know because I have liberal friends. When you really push them on some subjects, some of them admit..."yeah, you're right..but what can we do?"

One problem for left-wing Jews re superior Jewish IQ is that if you believe in Affirmative Action, it implies that Jewish numbers at eg Harvard should be capped so that disasvantaged minorities like white gentiles can get more places. Currently the position is that you get AA if you are from a lower-IQ-than-white-gentile, but you aren't discriminated against if you are from a higher-IQ-than-white-gentile group. The result is that white gentiles now make up a tiny proportion of Harvard's intake, last I saw it was around 20%. And when you subtract the rich legacies, that leaves almost no places for 2/3 of the US population.

@Eric's thesis is asinine, and is the typical dreck we get from religiously obsessive types.

1) Denial of HBD is just as common amongst the religious as it is amongst atheists, if not more so.

2) Acceptance of HBD is just as common amongst atheists as it is amongst the religious, if not more so.

3) There are plenty of ways for atheists to value the unique worth of each individual which don't rely on a mindless denial of HBD and denial of racially based group differences in IQ.

4) Religion is not the only source of ethics, values, morals, etc and thus atheism is not a rejection of ethics, values, morals, etc., and religious types who think that they have a monopoly on these things are dangerously delusional.

Eric's thesis fails and falls flat on its face when you consider (and know from personal experience) that most religious leaders and religious rank and file are every bit as much HBD-deniers and IQ-difference-deniers as the "atheist elites".

In point of fact HBD denial is a type of secular religion which has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with conforming to the dominant beliefs of Society. It is perfectly compatible with both liberal atheists and conservative Christians.

Don't believe me? Go ahead, try to talk HBD facts to your average Church goer, see how far you get. Unless you are in an extremely conservative, usually Southern, Church, where there is still some living memory and support for the old White Supremacist ideology, what you'll get in response will be no different in substance from what you'd get if you tried to talk HBD facts to your average "elite atheist".

There is no difference for the vast majority: atheist or religious, they all toe the anti-racist party line.

And of course there's a huge difference between an atheist Jew and a typical white atheist: an atheist Jew is still a Jew. He or she is still, consciously or unconsciously, acting as part of the Tribe, or extended Jewish evolutionary-psychology group strategy. Atheist whites, on the other hand, like most religious whites, really are attempting to be "race neutral" and committing ethnic, racial, and civilizational suicide in the process.

Obsessing over "atheism" per se is to miss the point, massively. It is a true Epic Fail.

"Despite all his ethnic slurs, I've always doubted Nixon's own ethnicity.He doesn't look Anglo-Saxon, and although he claimed Irish ancestry, he doesn't look Irish.I've read of Albanian ancestry, which kind of figures."

WTF?

First off, Nixon is Scotch-Irish, not Irish; big difference. The Scotch-Irish came from the English-Scottish borders region, with possibly a short stay in Northern Ireland before reaching America.

Just because Nixon looks a bit odd doesn't make him unlikely to be Scotch-Irish; he looks far more Anglo-Celtic or Anglo-American than anything that looks remotely Albanian, for crying out loud - where did you get that howler from?

How many Albanian Quakers have you met? Or Methodist Albanians?

The only thing "odd" about Nixon's looks is his funny shaped nose, which is something you're still more likely to find in NW Europe than in SE Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

"Nixon was born on January 9, 1913, to Francis A. Nixon and Hannah Milhous Nixon in a house his father had built in Yorba Linda, California.[2][3][4] His mother was a Quaker, and his upbringing was marked by conservative Quaker observances of the time, such as refraining from drinking, dancing, and swearing. His father converted from Methodism to Quakerism after his marriage.[4] Nixon had four brothers: Harold (1909–1933), Donald (1914–1987), Arthur (1918–1925), and Ed (born 1930).[5] Four of the five of the Nixon boys were named after early English kings; Richard was named after Richard the Lionheart.[6]"

Despite all his ethnic slurs, I've always doubted Nixon's own ethnicity.He doesn't look Anglo-Saxon, and although he claimed Irish ancestry, he doesn't look Irish.I've read of Albanian ancestry, which kind of figures.

Read page one of Fraser's "The Steel Bonnets". Nixon is "the perfect example" of the Anglo-Scottish border type: "the blunt, heavy features, the dark complexion, the burly body, and the whole air of dour hardness are as typical of the Anglo-Scottish frontier as the Roman Wall."

First, let me say that IQ is baloney. IQ is basically just an indication of how many books you have read.

LOL, yeah, that's why there are so many different IQ tests for kids age 2-5, because kids that young have read sooooo many books.

"They are very good at making good arguments but seem to care less about making true arguments."

Oh comon. 99% of people -- Jewish and Gentile both -- don't care about making true arguments. 99% of people start with the result they want to reach and then fashion an argument to support their pre-determined conclusion.

"The bigger problem is Jewish Americans affinity towards Israel, to the point that I would personally call treasonous."

If it turned out that Italian-Americans had affinity towards Italy; or that Polish-Americans had affinity towards Poland; or that Irish-Americans had affinity towards Ireland, would you personally call them treasonous?

The otherwise gifted Shafer is still trying to figure out how he spent the most energetic years of his journalistic life editing a sex-ad rag, Washington's City Paper, before coming home to the classier and smarter Slate. "How could I be that dumb?"Well, smart people say and do dumb things, sometimes setting land-speed records for dumbness.

Nixon was a smart man, and he knew how important it was to get the Jews on his side. The aforementioned Balfour declaration is a great example. Without it, the American media would never have drummed up the support for the US to get into WW1 and Britain's ass would have been toast.

"Those most vocally enraged by The Bell Curve were white intellectuals, especially Jews. To them, the assertion that the average black IQ was equal to the average American IQ serves as the outer bulwark defending the inner sanctum: the belief that the average Jewish American IQ is equal to the average American IQ. If you let the peasants realize that blacks are on average could be less smart, eventually they'll figure out that Jews on average could be more smart, and then they'll be coming for us with pitchforks!"Well, seriously, anybody with the least sense of objectivity can not deny that the organized Jewish community in the West is against ethnic pride and solidarity within the majority population. Noting the IQ gap between whites and NAMs is just the sort of thing that may create a stronger, less politically correct and more anti-immigration, white majority. And, honestly, it's a lot more controversial to point out the IQ gap between blacks and white, than it is to talk about the IQ gap between Jews and white gentiles. So, I'm really sceptical about your theory, Steve.

Nixon was a very smart guy. Just didn't have the right personality for a president. His populist tacties and attacks on media, the universities and the arts obviously didn't play well with the Jews. Nothing strange about, nothing really antisemitic about his comments either.

Let me say, however, that I got nothing against Jews. Actually, I sort of like Jews. They're smart, verbally agile - which I appreciate more than mathematics -, often funny, often anti-establishment, pro-weed and overall a very gifted people (not just IQ-wise). In a lot of ways I feel I got something in commons with Jews: I want to work in culture, media and stuff like that. Obviously, they got bad traits too - Nixon was probably right about both the aggressiva & insecure tendencies - but a lot of people, KMac being one of them, do oversate them.

"For every intelligent Jew I've ever come across I've also met one who was either deeply neurotic, autistic, a mental case or really just downright retarded. There are plenty of dysfunctional Jews out there; they're not all MENSA members you know."

Two of the Jewish people that I know the best are a guy who was a janitor for years at an apartment complex who was finally promoted and then lost his job due to drinking. And another guy who worked in our office who was still basically a gofer at 30 and also got fired for doing stupid things.

If it turned out that Italian-Americans had affinity towards Italy; or that Polish-Americans had affinity towards Poland; or that Irish-Americans had affinity towards Ireland, would you personally call them treasonous?"

There's a difference between affinity and loyalty. How many italian american political figures have served in the Italian military? Is every candidate for President seemingly REQUIRED to speak before the Italian American Political Action Committee or the Irish American Political Action Committee?

Do liberals have nothing better to do but get another kick in at Nixon? Hell, he was your guy anyway, or at leasat ended up being one. Not many conservatives would claim Nixon as one of thier own anymore.

The Slate article is an example of the distorting influence that jewish influence in the media has had - as if the most important thing about Richard Nixon were his privately expressed observations that jews sometimes tend to be pushy. The Horror!

Look, I've lived in England all my born days.I can honestly say that I've never, ever seen an ethic English, Welsh, Scottish or Irishman who remotely resembled Richard Nixon. Sorry, that's just the way it is - that's not a 'British' face. I know you Americans have some mixed up ideas - along with mixed up people - as to what ethnic 'Britishers' should look like, but Richard Nixon sure wasn't one of us. That nose for example - I've never seen on an English street.

Perhaps Nixon's most lasting legacy was his unilateral revocation of dollar/gold convertibility, thus (treacherously) destroying the Bretton Woods agreement. In retrospect all it gave us was the turmoil of the oil shock, the horrific stagflation of the 1970s, and to cap it all the finiacial bust of 2007.

Of course, the oil shock of 1973 was the price America paid for Nixon's support of Israel in the war. Being a mere young whipper-snapper in those days - all I remember were 'petrol rationing coupons', I didn't realise the full, massive import of the oil crisis on the western world for years afterwards. Basically, it knocked the stuffing out of the west, and the next oil shock of 1980 o more or less sealed its fate. From then onwards the west was stuck in a mire of high inflation, high unemployment, low growth and declining living standards.The post-war golden age died.

If it turned out that Italian-Americans had affinity towards Italy; or that Polish-Americans had affinity towards Poland; or that Irish-Americans had affinity towards Ireland, would you personally call them treasonous?

Another reason Jews might be uncomfortable about public awareness of race and IQ is that it begs the question, "why can't Jews publicly recognize it, when others can?". Of course, it points out the obvious, they have to align themselves politically with other groups in order to leverage their own goals. It is not just that they become potential target. They then become recognized as the elite they are causing disention among the ranks and opponents of others who's main crime seems to be that their ancestors got here first.

I think the slate article is more indicative of the insecurities of Jack Shafer than of anything else. We all know that Nixon was a rather unpleasant guy. We also know of this attitude towards Jews. So what? 40 years later and nearly 20 years after his death, who cares what Nixon thought.

Precisely. The Left is perennially compelled to dig up some old conservative's corpse and take a fresh piss on it.

I checked the Slate site to see if Shafer was old enough to have yelled the personal IS the political! at his older relatives across the dinner table. They didn't have a pic or birthdate but he seems to be in a younger cohort.

Also Steve, why don't you apply for a job at Slate? If you're turned down, with their-ahem-demographics you've got a hell of a lawsuit.

Jews hate and fear Nixon because what he said about Jews back then--much if not all of it--is truer than ever. Consider Jewish power in media, university, government, lobbying groups, etc. Consider Jewish role in gay agenda, open borders, globalization, interracialism and MTV, deracination of whites, rise of Obama the mulatto prince. Everything Nixon warned and feared has come to pass--and more!!

In Nixon's time, Jews were still on the rise and not decisively dominant. We are in the age of Joel Stein's 'Jews Own Everything'. Nixon feared this would happen, and it happened. So, Jews don't want to think about this reality. If you do, you're an 'antisemite'... like Rick Sanchez. So, instead of honestly tackling the veracity of what Nixon said, Jews go into hysterics and name-calling. Their prejudice against Nixon is far more outlandish than Nixon's prejudice about others.

Funny age we live in.Jews taking pride in Joel Stein saying, "We Own All".

AND

Jews warning us never to think "Jews Own All", or else Abe Foxman will bite your ass.

The age of Stein-Fox trot. We are all going schizo.

Funny that Jews, who are always telling us to 'speak truth to power' and think contrarian thoughts, are so adamant about us being mum about Jewish power... even though some Jews tell us that they do indeed own and control everything.

It's like, "We Jews control everything but if YOU, a gentile, agree with what we say, you're an 'antisemite'".

Blacks are like this too. It's like, "We brothas can kick your slow white ass but if you say we are stronger, then you're spreading fear, and so you're a racist."

Speaking of private conversations and private behavior, I wonder how liberal Jews feel about MLK, the saint of peace. Wasn't he really a fraud who pulled a Trojan Horse trick on white folks with the aid of Jews?

The only dream he was dreaming was having drunken orgies with women, slapping them around, saying blasphemous things, and bragging about his loutish behavior to his associates. And I'll bet in private, he said stuff about Jewish power too with his black associates(kinda like Jesse Jackson and his 'hymietown' remark. And didn't Andrew Young say he welcomed Walmart because Jewish, Asian, and Arab merchants exploited blacks by selling them moldy bread? Jews got pissed over that comment but if Young had left out 'Jews' from his comment, it probably wouldn't have been picked up by the media radar.)

We need a new Shakespeare to write the "Tragedy of Richard Nixon". I grew up in Washington DC. I was taught to hate Nixon - early and often.

In those days there was no opposition media. There was no Internet and no talk radio. Everyone read the Washington Post. Everyone saw the Herblock cartoons that portrayed Nixon as thug with five o'clock shadow.

He cracked under the unrelenting pressure. He was a poor boy who thought that he had a chance at the American Dream. But no, Jack Kennedy, the spoiled rich kid was never criticised when he tried to steal the election or when he brought prostitutes into the White House. The way the press consistently portrayed Nixon could make any man bitter.

The reason the Jews try to disguise their high IQs is nothing other than being adaptive. Apparently Jews have seen the second Star Trek movie - The Wrath of Khan. In that story line science created a race of the super smart and the super strong. What happens to them? They are hunted down and exiled to a planet with brain eating worms. In that scenario, the genetic supermen took over the whole earth in the 1990s. The earth was not grateful.

Being extra smart does not win you admiration. It is more likely to get you shipped off to the ovens or to the planet of brain eating worms.

"The underlying question is, if they're so smart, why are they so wrong? I would submit that they're so wrong because they're so smart."

Bingo, and this was the problem of Nixon too. He suffered the hubris of intellect. He was so enamoured of his own genius that he went for 'grand strategies'. Instead of dealing with issues head on and candidly, he went for the master plot that would resolve all--kinda like kill five or six birds with one stone. Kissinger had the same kind of conceit. Both men were indeed smart but overestimated what smartness could do.

Nixon's hubris showed up in both his foreign and domestic policy. Instead of dealing with issues on a one-by-one basis, he would go for triangulation, i.e. bundle up the issues into big solution. (Also sounds like the financial strategy of bundling up housing debts into derivatives and etc, etc. Something that crazy could only be cooked up by 'smartest guys in the room'.) How to do deal with communism? Make peace with Red China to divide the communist world. Use China against Russia, work with China to end the war in Vietnam. Fight communism by working with communism. Play it like Yojimbo in the Kurosawa movie. Play the game of the puppetmaster.

And in domestic policy, Nixon's strategy was pretty much the same. Instead of standing and fighting for conservative principles and for the Silent Majority that elected him, he went for a kind of political triangulation whereby he would split blacks and Hispanics(by making Hispanics compete for the same minority pie through affirmative action, etc), appropriate or 'steal' some liberal policies to undermine the Democrats, all the while pulling off the Southern Strategy.

How brilliant, how grand, how smart. But in the end, how damaging!!!Both Nixon's foreign and domestic policies were disasters. Contrary to what Nixon and Kissinger thought in the early 70s, the Sino-Soviet rift had already occurred in the early 60s. Even without Nixon's visit, China and Russia hated one another. Also, Chinese didn't do diddly squat to help the US in the Vietnam War. In retrospect, John Lukacs was probably right. US should have made peace with Russia than with China in the 70s. China, not Russia, was destined to the longterm rival of US. USSR was bound to fall apart along ethnic lines. Also, vanishing Russian demographics would have spelled doom for Russia's superpower status. Looking at the world today, Lukacs seemed more correct than ever. In other words, US should have 'let China sleep and not have awakened the giant'. Nixon's trip to China was great stagecraft but in the longterm, bad statecraft. So much for Nixon and Kissinger's brilliance.

As for Nixon's triangulation strategy at home, what has it wrought in the long run? Rise of identity politics among Hispanics and Asians, over-reliance of GOP on southern rednecks, and slavishness to AIPAC. Nixon may have been the most Zionist US president(prior to W)who steered the GOP to total support of the Jewish state(and rise of neocons), but what has the GOP gotten back from the Jews for giving Jews everything?

Eisenhower, a less intelligent man, wouldn't have gone for something so crazily brilliant. And he was a better and saner president with sounder advisors.

I think Nixon had a love/hate thing with Jews all his life. On the one hand, he almost felt as an honorary Jew. He was an outsider filled with great ambition, resentment, insecurities. He was as neurotic as Woody Allen. He felt towards the handsome Kennedy as Albert Brooks felt toward William Hurt in Broadcast News. He felt he was smarter and more qualified but the presidency was stolen from him by 'golden boy' Kennedy, the darling of the media with connections to machine politics(especially in Chicago).

Nixon was also bitter about the Eastern Establishment, which was mostly wasp in his time. His resentment toward the WASP elite was akin to how a Jew might have felt when a rich WASP told him, 'you can't join my country club and you can't marry my daughter'. Nixon wanted to be part of the inner circle, but no matter how high he rose and how much power he attained, he would never be considered as 'one of us' by the bluebloods. In this sense, he must have identified with the Jews. Like them, he had to work in the shadows, to go into 'conspiratorial' mode to challenge the power of the East Coast Blue Blood power. Unlike the bluebloods, he grew up poor in California. He was almost like an immigrant from the West to the East. And religiously, he was from a Quaker family, a small sect within Christianity.

On the other hand, Nixon was very much an American conservative who was raised with strong values and ideas of Americanness. He resented Jewish radicalism, subversion, and sneakery. (But he may also have hated the Jews because he saw so much of himself in them. Same was true of Hitler. Every foul thing Hitler said of Jews could apply to him as well.) It is for this reason that Oliver Stone might have been obsessed with Nixon all his life. Though ideological enemies, both men had very conflicted feelings about America, wasps, Jewishness, and East Coast vs West Coast. (Interesting that Wall Street takes place in NY while Doors starts out in the West).

Nixon, like Jews, was also an intense idealist and the utmost cynic. He could never shake off the do-goodery drummed into him by his Quaker parents. But he was also political to the bone and coldly calculating. Jews too are big on 'doing good' and 'playing the game'.

And, one reason why Jews hate but are so fascinated with Nixon could be because they see a lot of themselves in him as well. Familiarity breeds contempt. OBAMA--cleancut progressive mulatto figure--is what Jews want to be(or appear to be); NIXON is what they are.

What may also worry Jews is not so much what Nixon said of Jews but how close he was to Jews. Through Nixon's administration, we can almost see how the neocons began to take over the GOP and US policy. Jews want to HIDE their power and don't want people to think Jews control the inner circle.

Slate's view (and that of all educated, well-behaved liberals) is that group differences must not be noticed! If we let people notice "good" group differences, then we'd have to let people notice "bad" group differences -- and we can't have that! Ergo, anyone who notices a group difference of any kind, without immediately attributing it to some environmental factor, is a racist, antisemite, misogynist, etc.

Of course, Jewish animosity toward Nixon goes back to the 40s and 50s when Nixon led the anti-communist crusade. In the mythology of Jewish American history, the "McCarthy Era" is almost up there with the Holocaust and Stalin's Great Terror(which purged many top Jews). Jews have this victimological narrative where they never did wrong but were always wronged. So, Jews ignore their role in creating Soviet Communism and aiding Stalin's rise to power but only focus on Jews-as-victims-of-Stalin. Similarly, Jews ignore the extent to which American Jews were involved in espionage, subversion, and radicalism--which tend to be romanticized or rationalized as Jewish idealism on the occasion that such matters do get mentioned; instead, Jews just fixate on how Jews had been targeted and attacked by anti-communist bullies and crypto-fascists of the American Right.

McCarthy Era was unpleasant but hardly the 'darkest period' in American history, as Jewish liberal mythology makes it out to be. Besides, what FDR did to Japanese-Americans was many times worse than what happened to Jews in the late 40s and early 50s. But the thing is, something bad happened to JEWS, and so it must be the most awful thing that ever happened--after the Holocaust.

Nixon was a leading player in anti-communism, and so Jews came to see him as Hitler and Stalin(ironic though this may seem). Though many leftist Jews supported the Stalinist USSR, the prevailing Jewish narrative was 'evil antisemitic Stalin usurped the Jewish founding fathers of the revolution'. (In fact, Stalin wasn't particularly anti-anything. He was anti-everything. But, given Jewish control of media, most people only know 'Stalin killed Jews'.)

What this means is that what Jews fear most is the kind of goy who can 'outjew' the Jew. Stalin rose to power by 'outjewing' the Jews. He was even more paranoid, conspiratorial, ruthless, and cunning than the Jews. And Hitler, though pathologically anti-Jewish, pulled every 'dirty Jewish' trick in the book. For all his talk of Aryan honesty and brightness, he worked in the darkness in the most 'conspiratorial' mode.And Jews see Nixon as part of this mold--the goy who can 'outjew' the Jew.

Jews probably prefer predictable goyim like Dan Quayle. They may look down on dumbass Dan, but you know Quayle can never 'outjew' a Jew. And though Obama is pretty slick and smart, he's too shallow and vapid to pursue real power. As long as all the celebrity light shines on him, he's happy. He's smart enough to know what the Jews are up to and how they're using him, but he figures he entered the history books as the first black dude thanks to Jewish money/power, and that satisfies his vanity.

It has been done like that by European Monarch for century. The scary moment is when average Joes get power with democracy. The people's power leaders like Hitler would let jealousy into hate for genercide.

The thing is, even lots of unsuccessful Jews are smart. Karl Marx was one. In his lifetime, he lived on handouts from capitalists he loathed. But he was brilliant(even if brilliantly wrong).

I wouldn't be so quick to say Marx was wrong. His theory, as I understand it, was that Capitalism would EVENTUALLY and NATURALLY be replaced by Socialism as the Proletariat got bigger and more educated while the Capitalists became fewer. Then, Socialism would EVENTUALLY and NATURALLY be replaced by Communism, as industry became so efficient and automated that working would become a hobby and goods cheap enough to give away.

Capitalism morphing into Socialism is happening right under our noses.

As for factories some day running themselves and stuff being too cheap to bother selling, who knows? Imagine unlimited fusion power and an appliance that can assemble ANYTHING from individual atoms using nanoscale blueprints.

Marxist-Leninism, however, was a clearly stupid spinoff that could never have worked.

If it turned out that Italian-Americans had affinity towards Italy; or that Polish-Americans had affinity towards Poland; or that Irish-Americans had affinity towards Ireland, would you personally call them treasonous?

It depends on the nature of the affinity, but in general, yes. If Irish-Americans had the same "affinity" for Ireland as Jewish-Americans show for Israel, the US would have gone to war with England long ago.

One problem for left-wing Jews re superior Jewish IQ is that if you believe in Affirmative Action, it implies that Jewish numbers at eg Harvard should be capped so that disasvantaged minorities like white gentiles can get more places.

Change that to "disadvantaged white gentiles with an equal or great IQ than the Jews currently in the Ivies" and you're about right.

Most Jews, I'm guessing, will take Nixon's bigoted remarks and friendliness towards the state of Israel over Obama's post-racial sympathy for Muslims and obvious distaste for Israel. Most real Jews anyway, which is only a minority. The rest of Jews are more like general liberal white idiots. Remember to all those who claim Jews are only loyal to Israel - 75% voted for a Muslim'named pro-palestinian for president.

Jews love America. They're as patriotic as other whites, if mostly because it's the best nation they've ever been safe in.

Jews are mostly an irrelevant issue, as they are as prone to the endless status wars inside the upper elites as anyone, after they ascended in say the 1950's.

Nixon, arguably one of the worst Presidents (Wage-price controls, EPA, Affirmative Action, Detente, Peace With Honor) was a central piece of the status wars. Nixon's base was the lower part of the status-seekers, the Duke grads, Westerners, the middle class who had made it up to the lower parts of the upper class. Against him were the Upper Class: the media, entertainment (John Lennon), those from the Ivies (Woodward, IIRC), the old line establishment.

If you were a Jew raised up, like Kissinger, by Nixon you were loyal to him. If you were a Jew in the opposition and hankering to join the aristocracy (like Woody Allen) you hated him. In both cases it was not Jewishness itself that was an issue but the tide of Ivy/Aristocratic/Media/Entertainment privilege, i.e. the Kennedy Types (glamor, "sophistication," class) vs. the lower Upper class and higher middle class.

Albert, 'Secret Honor' comes very close to making Nixon into a tragic, pathetic King Lear type figure.Other Nixon films include the Anthony Hopkins film of that name, and the excellent stage prooduction 'Frost/Nixon', a gripping account of the famous David Frost mid-air interviews with Nixon, in which Nixon was famously reduced to tears. Nixon seemed to resonate to an archetype of America's darkest, secret fears.Not only his dark, forbidding physical appearance, but the general patina of 'corporate' (symbollized by Nixon's 1950's style IBM type management style), corruption and terror unleashed by the dark, cold-hearted man. In short, Nixon plays Satan to Jack Kennedy's Christ.

To penetrate here from the forest into the trees, the salient thing about Jewish IQ is the degree of disparity vis a vis other populations between Verbal IQ andPerformance IQ (Performance measured by perceiving and replicating block designs, putting puzzle jigsaws of familiar objects together quickly, seeing what's missing in pictures ).The crude and offensive caricature of Jews as "verbal engineers" that we might not wish to entrust our auto repair to, does have some basis that needs to be underscored in order to obscure caricature and enhance understanding.

The thing that may be frustrating and discomfitting to Jews regarding NIxon(and his tapes) is that the more his 'abuses' and 'darkness' are exposed, the same goes for Jewish rise and power. Not only did Nixon 'obsess' about Jewish power but his administration included many important Jews. NIxon's conversations are not only ABOUT Jews but WITH Jews(and FOR Jews). One cannot unearth Nixon's antisemtism without unearthing his philosemitism(or at least his dependence on Jewish brains, money, and influence; I guess neocons and Judeo-cons were trying to triangulate Nixon's presidency.)

Using Hollywood as an anology, Jews want us to see the performance but not the strings behind the curtains. They want us to see the show but not the business. They want us to have faith in the myth of Jewish wonderfulness, innocence, and saintliness as presented in the Jewish-controlled media. They don't want us to become aware of what Jews do BEHIND THE CURTAIN in order to turn gentiles into philosemitic podpeople. No presidency became as EXPOSED as Nixon's presidency, and even though the liberal Jewish media did much to expose and bring him down, Jews have been nervous about the Nixon files revealing too much juicy stuff about Jewish power. Jew control the show--media and politics--but they want us to fixate only on the show and not look behind the curtain. If we knew what really takes place in the shadows, the magic would rub off, and we wouldn't be so slavish and easy to manipulate.

Consider the two events where Jews turned reality into an eternal myth. Jesus, a Jewish rebel, died and would have been forgotten. But the Jewish Paul came along and created a myth whereby Jesus wasn't just a Jew but the Son of God. And Paul said WE ALL KILLED THIS SON OF GOD, and so WE CAN ONLY BE SAVED THROUGH HIM. We all have blood on our hands and the blood can be washed away only by total faith in Jesus. Paul probably knew he was concocting a myth, but so what? It worked wonders with more and more people. The death of Jesus would have faded away from historical memory if for the 'showbiz' briliance of Paul. Paul created a myth behind the curtain but sold a good show to the populace.

In the 20th century, there was the Holocaust. Until the 60s, it was not the defining event in Jewish life. And until the 1970s, most Americans didn't think too much of it. But then came the Shoah-business and the Holocaust was turned into a religion, a kind of Holocaustianity. It was as if Jews died for our sins, and since we were all guilty, the only way we could be saved was by total faith/love/devotion to the Jew. We must NOT ask any questions about Jewish power, no more than a Christan would dare question the perfection of the Son of God. Just have faith in the holiness of Jews. Spielberg(or is it St. Piel?)'s SCHINDLER'S LIST is important in this regard. It's not just a Holocaust movie showing us the horrors. It shows a gentile sinner who is spiritually and morally saved by learning to love and save Jews. It's a Christian parable-ization of a Jewish tragedy. Thus, we are all forgiven IF we have total love and faith for the Jew.

The thing is Holocaustianity didn't just happen naturally. It was created, promoted, disseminated, and marketed by a Jewish controlled media just as Paul crafted and sold the myth of Christ. Just as Paul sought to hide his 'creativity', Jews don't want us to see the behind-the-curtains manipulations of what might be called the Jew-sus faith. Jews want us to believe, like we believe in the magic of Hollywood movies. Jews also want us to see Obama the 'magic negro' messiah, not how Jewish power made him into what he is. NIxon is dangerous to Jews because it was the presidency where the darkness of power was most exposed. And much of that darkness involves Jews.

You can wash away lots of sin(of all kinds)if you profess love for Jews. Suppose a politician is outed as a lout, a thief, and a scoundrel. If he was pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, one can at least say of him 'He loved Jews'. That in and of itself would be counted as a virtue regardless of WHY he 'loved' Jews. It works with only one other people: blacks.Even the worst politician, agent, or gangster can partly salvage his reputation as 'the person who loved blacks.'

Now, imagine some guy getting in hot water and seeking support as 'the guy who loved Armenians' or 'the fella so full of sympathy for Bulgarians'. I mean who'd give a shit.

So, love for Jews is good in and of itself. The question isn't 'why' but 'how much'.

I rushed to read this for some giggles about my Irishness and Italianess, I guess most people aren't like myself.

I was thoroughly disappointed. He only said a deviation of the Irish = drunk stereotype. He didn't say anything cool about the guidos, I wanted to hear something like those grease monkeys won't ever make it in America until they stop being so Italian.

At least what he said wasn't as boring as the "Jews are cheap" stereotype.

Yes anyone who has lived around Jews know that they are HUGE pains in the butt.

Hey Steve, do agree that the Chicago Jews are the absolute worst when it comes to what Nixon said?

"One problem for left-wing Jews re superior Jewish IQ is that if you believe in Affirmative Action, it implies that Jewish numbers at eg Harvard should be capped"

As a matter of fact, they already do limit Jewish enrollment. This is accomplished by pushing for "geographic diversity," which as a practical matter means limiting enrollement by kids who live in affluent suburbs of North Jersey; Westchester; Long Island; etc.

Which in turn -- as a practical matter -- means limiting Jewish enrollment.

"the Nazis would have agreed that Jews have higher IQs than Germans - Nazis actually distrusted smart people as a rule."

One more time--get out of your hothouse HBD environment and look at real people who really lived and look at what they did. I'm not defending "nazis" but forcrissake, both Russia and the U.S. fought to get the smartest ones after WWII. Well, of course they weren't really "nazis" they were just scientists. I won't go into all the rumors (some can't be proven) but they were far ahead of the western powers. If they'd stuck to their science, instead of their social engineering agenda, they'd have won. The Germans were the most advanced nation--technologically--by the early 1800s, and that had little to do with Jews at that time. In fact, Jewish influence was at its strongest in the later 1800s and early 1900s, in the arts and in the economy, not the sciences, though there certainly were some great scientists (Einstein of course, though Emil Poincare of France probably preceded him with the theory of relativity,and Poincare was from a Catholic background.)The Germans had no lack of smarts. Germany is doing just fine in technological and social advancement without a Jewish presence. All that being said, I actually do think that the Jewish contributions to the arts and literature, social sciences and sciences, made Europe strangely fascinating in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They enhanced urban life especially. I know of no "minorities" in the late 20th century, who bring anything positive to the urban environment. Indeed, they pretty much decimate urbanity. The persecution of the Jews was very tragic for everyone, the masses of Jews as well as gentiles, that a few arrogant and evil people got so much control over the banking industry. Surely there other means of facing the problems of a certain group having too much say in a certain area. It's called negotiation, but first you have to admit that there is a problem and a need to negotiate. I don't want to be blamed for the misdeeds of Rockefeller because I am a white gentile; and I would not want to be blamed for the misdeeds of a Rothschild just for being Jewish.

One possibility is that Stalin had his troops in a vulnerable forward position in 1941 because he was thinking of an offensive, but not against Germany itself. Perhaps he was considering an invasion of Romania to seize its oil fields, just as in 1939-40 he'd fought a war with Finland for limited goals. The goal could have been to pick up useful pieces of land to set up the Soviet Union to be the ultimate victor in the war after Germany and the British Empire exhausted each other.

Stalin had his troops in forward postions because the Red Army was simultaneously occupying the land in Poland and Eastern Europe while bringing up his forward defences. He abandoned the so called "Stalin" line which was a ferro-concrete set of fortifications that had been placed along the original frontier of the Sovied Union. Taken into consideration was the fact that the Red Army got around by foot and train, they were particularly vulnerable to blitzkeig tactics.

It's interesting that the Nixon tapes came out during the Wikileaks scandal thing.

To an extent, Jews bash Nixon's private conversations as a kind of effigy, a public shaming so that we all understand that we are not to mess with Jewish power. And this means we must expurgate all anti-Jewish sentiments not only from public discourse but from private conversation and thought. It's not enough to act philosemitic; we must THINK and FEEL philosemitic. It was not enough that Nixon was good for Jews. The fact that he had private reservations about Jews means he was possessed by demons. If Stone's "NIXON" imagines Tricky Dick reflecting on his life on LSD, the slate article imagines a scenario where Nixon is dragged to PC sensitivity training class. Nixon may or may not have ordered the Watergate break-in, but liberal Jews break into his psyche to expose all the 'rabid' 'virulent' 'paranoid' and 'odious' demons, especially about Jews. Any negative thoughts about Jews is a disease, a paranoid fantasy. You see, there is no Jewish agenda(though Tim Wise and Frank Rich seem to gloat about how 'white people cannot take their country back', presumably because of open borders and PC brainwashing done to white kids by Jewish control of media and academia).

So, the public shaming of Nixon is to serve as a warning to everyone in both pubic and private life. DON'T MESS WITH JEWS. If even the president can be dragged thru the mud this way, imagine what can happen to governors, mayors, or any elected official(or government worker)who is suspected of similar thoughts. And we have this on college campuses too. Earlier this yr, a female Harvard student was publicly shamed for a politically incorrect private email.

Some say there hasn't been much damaging stuff about Israel on Wikileaks because Assange is a Zionist agent. I think the real reason is because US diplomats are deadly afraid of Jewish power and thus fear saying or reporting anything may be construed as critical or damaging to Israel(or Jewish power). That's why there's so little stuff that might embarrass Israel or Jews on Wikileaks(as opposed to the case with trickydickileaks).

So, we've all learned the lesson. Every government official and diplomat knows he or she can candidly report on Europe, Asia, Arabs, Latin America, etc. but he or she better watch what he or she says about Jews or Israel--that is if he or she wants a future career and promotion in or out of government.

If it turned out that Italian-Americans had affinity towards Italy; or that Polish-Americans had affinity towards Poland; or that Irish-Americans had affinity towards Ireland, would you personally call them treasonous?

If they were trying to drag us into wars with countries such as Iraq and Iran I would have to say yes! Fortunately, the US-born Irish, Italians and Poles do not believe that the United States has a moral obligation to fight the enemies of their brethren!

Well, of course they weren't really "nazis" they were just scientists. I won't go into all the rumors (some can't be proven) but they were far ahead of the western powers. If they'd stuck to their science, instead of their social engineering agenda, they'd have won.

Yikes! You nerds need to break open a work of literature once in a while (see "Faustian bargain").

"If they were trying to drag us into wars with countries such as Iraq and Iran I would have to say yes!"

I'm skeptical that American Jews as a group are trying to drag the US into a war with Iraq or Iran. In fact, I would be willing to bet a few dollars that American Jews oppose the Iraq war in higher percentages than American Gentiles.

By the way, are you aware that the US has a mutual defense treaty with Italy and Britain but not with Israel? Are you aware that the US has spent a good deal of effort defending countries like Saudi Arabia which are enemies of Israel?

I'm skeptical that American Jews as a group are trying to drag the US into a war with Iraq or Iran. In fact, I would be willing to bet a few dollars that American Jews oppose the Iraq war in higher percentages than American Gentiles.

Here's an article by Michelle Goldberg in Salon from 2002 titled Why American Jewish groups support war with Iraq. I recommend reading the whole thing.

The Watergate incident and Richard Nixon: was it really so bad, compared to the mischief Clinton or perhaps Bush Jr. or the no-longer-Fresh Prince did or will do?

Watergate seems to me to have been a scandal trumped-up by the non-Quaker and non-Southern Baptist news media, and by persons in the US government with an animus against Nixon.

Acting FBI Director Mark Felt – not a Quaker – was the Deep Throat informant to Woodward and Bernstein. Felt’s apparent motive was the news that Nixon was not going to appoint Felt permanent FBI Director.

Watergate … a Jewish putsch. And Nixon’s military re-supply of Israel during the October 1972 war saved Israel from defeat. Some gratitude.

//////////////////////////

Taken into consideration was the fact that the Red Army got around by foot and train, they were particularly vulnerable to blitzkeig tactics.

The Germans got around in the Ost Front by mostly train and by foot and horse drawn wagons. The Panzers had to loaded on flatbed railroad cars to be moved any significant distance.

The image of the Wehrmacht blitzing from Prussia to the Caucasus was Reichs Propaganda Ministry fiction – successful fiction.

Thanks to Franklin Roosevelt's military aid the the USSR, the Red Army after some point in 1943 always had more motor vehicles thanthe Nazis.

"I wouldn't be so quick to say Marx was wrong. His theory, as I understand it, was that Capitalism would EVENTUALLY and NATURALLY be replaced by Socialism as the Proletariat got bigger and more educated while the Capitalists became fewer. Then, Socialism would EVENTUALLY and NATURALLY be replaced by Communism, as industry became so efficient and automated that working would become a hobby and goods cheap enough to give away."

But the socialism we have is a capitalist-led-and-controlled one. 'Socialism' is the means by which the elites make the masses dependent on The System controlled by the elites.

"The reason the Jews try to disguise their high IQs is nothing other than being adaptive. Apparently Jews have seen the second Star Trek movie - The Wrath of Khan. In that story line science created a race of the super smart and the super strong. What happens to them? They are hunted down and exiled to a planet with brain eating worms. In that scenario, the genetic supermen took over the whole earth in the 1990s. The earth was not grateful."

"She said it was a peculiar situation, seeing that Israel and the U.S. were in fact close allies."

It is a bit peculiar, but then again, maybe the US is not as big an ally of Israel as many people seem to think. For example, it seems to me that the US could have easily demanded that the Kuwaitis recognize Israel as a quid pro quo for getting their country back for them. The US could also recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the American Embassy there.

Probably if Sarah Palin were president, the US would start doing stuff like this. But ironically, most Jews I know hate her guts. Even when I point out to them that she displayed an Israeli flag in her office in Juneau long before she was a candidate.

For example, it seems to me that the US could have easily demanded that the Kuwaitis recognize Israel as a quid pro quo for getting their country back for them. The US could also recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the American Embassy there.

Looking for data about railroad transportation and the mythos of Wehrmacht blitzkrieg operations in WWII, I came across this.

Eastern Front

Panther on the Eastern Front, 1944.

The Panther tank was seen as a necessary component of the upcoming Operation Zitadelle, and the attack was delayed several times because of their mechanical problems, with the eventual start date of the battle only six days after the last Panthers had been delivered to the front. This resulted in major problems in Panther units during the Battle of Kursk, as tactical training at the unit level, coordination by radio, and driver training were all seriously deficient.[68]

It was not until June 23–29, 1943, that a total of 200 rebuilt Panthers were finally issued to Panther Regiment von Lauchert, of the XLVIII Panzer Corps (4 Panzer Army). Two were immediately lost due to motor fires upon disembarking from the trains.[68]By July 5, when the Battle of Kursk started, there were only 184 operational Panthers. Within two days, this had dropped to 40.[68]

,..

The larger context around the passages quoted is that early generation, circa 1943, Panther tanks had mechanical reliability problems.

I'd just like to say that Schafer is my favorite writer at Slate, and one of my favorites all around. Maybe it's just me, but I never get tired of him skewering "bogus trend stories".

The better question than "Did Nixon have animus toward Jews qua Jews" is "What is the relevance?". If you're content to refute something Ben Stein wrote, you don't need Nixon. I'll agree with Whiskey that Nixon was a terrible president in a number of ways overshadowed by Watergate. If someone were to argue that his paranoia about the federal bureaucracy warped his handling of inflation, that would be interesting.

"It's common knowledge that the Russians had the best tank of the war (the T-34). They also manufactured a lot more tanks per month than the Germans."

It was not the best but it was fast and could be made in huge volumes. A top German tank would have beaten a T-34 on a one-and-one fight, but when there are every 4 Russian tanks to a German one, Russian tanks were bound to win. It's like a lone wolf cannot kill a grizzly but 4 or 5 can.

In 1943 the Soviets encountered the new German Tiger I and Panther tanks. Experience at the Battle of Kursk and reports from front-line commanders indicated that the T-34's 76.2 mm gun was now inadequate. An existing 85 mm (3.3 in) anti-aircraft gun was identified as effective against the new German tanks, and could be adapted to tank use.[29]...

... the Soviet command made the difficult decision to retool the factories to produce a new model of T-34 with a turret ring enlarged from 1,425 mm (56 in) to 1,600 mm (63 in), allowing a larger turret to be fitted. The T-43's turret design was hurriedly adapted by V. Kerichev at the Krasnoye Sormovo Factory to fit the T-34.[31] The resulting new T-34-85 tank had a far superior gun ( compared to the earlier 3 inch or 76.2mm gun -- DD ) and finally, a three-man turret with radio ...

Overall production slowed down somewhat while the new tank started its production run. Although a T-34-85 was still not a match for a Panther, the improved firepower made it much more effective than before. The decision to improve on the existing design instead of tooling up for a new one allowed the Soviets to manufacture tanks in such numbers that the difference in capabilities could be considered insignificant. In May 1944, the Wehrmacht had only 304 Panthers operating on the Eastern Front, while the Soviets had increased T-34-85 production to 1,200 tanks per month.[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

"Quantity has a quality all its own." An aphorism attributed to both Lenin and Stalin.

Before I get into it, can you summarize the salient points for me? TIA

Sure. Michelle Goldberg (who is Jewish) frames the issue as Jewish organizations "supporting" "the Bush administration's" stance on Iraq -- as opposed to the reality of their being the architects behind it.

Goldberg goes on to worry that if the war drags on Jews will cop the blame for it, and quotes leaders of prominent Jewish organization to that effect. (That is, she demonstrates little concern whether it would be good for America, just whether it'd be good for Jews.)

As for "anti-semites," they shoot themselves in the foot, ever confusing understanding a part for understanding the whole. That's why it's a cinch for you to shoot down nitwits like "Average Joe" by simply pointing out that America never rushed in troops when Israel was attacked in '48 or '73 (Israel of course started '67).

People should have a right to be able to discuss what they consider important without having to worry what Jews think about it, just as they're free to discuss what they think is important without worrying what Nigerians or Koreans think about it -- or just as blacks feel free to discuss what they consider important without caring much about what whites think about it. (Needless to say, Jews discuss what they want without caring what anyone on earth thinks about it.) So in this sense "antisemite!" is just a Jewish shut-up word that Jews use when people discuss issues close to Jewish hearts.

"It was not the best but it was fast and could be made in huge volumes. A top German tank would have beaten a T-34 on a one-and-one fight"

"So share some of this common knowledge with us.

State some specific reasons why the T-34 was good."

From Wikipedia:

"During the Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, it was discovered that the Soviet T-34 tank outclassed the Panzer III and IV. Its sloped armour could defeat most German weapons, and its 76.2 mm gun could penetrate the armour of all German tanks. This forced the Germans to improve their existing models."

'Happy Christmas (War is Over)' just came on over the radio a minute ago, probably for the 100th time this fortnight. I don't mind, I quite like the song and can listen to it incessantly, it's John Lennon at his best. Listening to that song often makes me emotional to the point of tears welling in my eyes.You see, I was young and radical back in the early '70s and the images that song evokes in my mind of B52 bombers strafing defencless north Vietnamese civilans, naked girls running around half burned with napalm are still shocking. Lest we forget that John Lennon wrote that song out of outrage and disgust at Nixon's Christmas Bombing campaign (yes, bombs fell on Christmas day itself)the idea being to bully and bludgeo the communists to the negotiating table. Bombing at Christmas - the day of peace and goodwill to all men (even though the Vietnamese are Buddhists), the whole thing is so poignant and repulsive. This is why Nixon was and is still hated. The man was a bastard.

"Of course, this dominant belief about smarts held by contemporary intellectuals is about 99% stupid. Practically everybody in America already realizes that Jews tend to be smarter. And, guess what, they're okay with it. Most Americans appreciate Jewish intelligence."

- This might be "peeling" off only the first layer of the onion. Because recognition of Jewish intelligence is only part of the story. Using their intelligence to obtain positions of influential power in the schools, media and government to fundamentally alter America through leftist policies that disadvantage mainstream America (white Christians) is the real pink elephant in the room that no one is "allowed" to discuss...

That's why it's a cinch for you to shoot down nitwits like "Average Joe" by simply pointing out that America never rushed in troops when Israel was attacked in '48 or '73 (Israel of course started '67).

So I guess you are another person who does not believe that the United States sent military and economic aid to Israel so that it could fight its enemies? The main reason why the United States has not sent forces to fight for Israel in those years was not because Jewish power was weak but because the Arabs were so poorly equipped to fight Israel that they were unnecessary. Bush sent U.S. forces to invade Iraq primarily on the advice of his Jewish neocon advisors. It is those same Jewish neocons who are calling for the United States to attack Iran.

"During the Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, it was discovered that the Soviet T-34 tank outclassed the Panzer III and IV. Its sloped armour could defeat most German weapons, and its 76.2 mm gun could penetrate the armour of all German tanks. This forced the Germans to improve their existing models."

""Which means that Italy and Britain would come to the defense of the United States hence the word 'mutual'.""

Yeah, like Italy is really gonna pull our chestnuts out of the fire if we are attacked."

Yeah, like Israel would bother to help us if we were attacked. What did they do for us post 9/11?

"How many troops did the US send to defend Israel in 1973? What about in 1967? 1948?"

None, of course. But it is wrong to imply that Israel recieved nothing from us prior to 1973. They recieved a good deal of military aid prior to 1967, including Hawk anti-aircraft missiles and M48 tanks. Some military aid was routed to them via West Germany, so as to conceal its source.

If you look at pictures from the six day war, you'll notice that the IDF used a lot of american tanks and half-tracks. They may have gotten some of these surplus from France, but then I don't imagine that the U.S. government would have had no say in that, either.

It's true that U.S. military aid to Israel really ramped up only after the Yom Kippur war, as is summarized in the tables in this report:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

The question then is, why? Why did we feel the need to give (not loan, but give) Israel nearly 2 billion dollars of military aid a year - even after the Soviet Union collapsed.

"I was young and radical back in the early '70s and the images that song evokes in my mind of B52 bombers strafing defencless north Vietnamese civilans, naked girls running around half burned with napalm are still shocking."

B-52s didn't strafe anything, and they generally dropped high explosive bombs, not napalm. And they never targeted North Vietnamese civilians. And North Vietnam had extensive, sophisticated, Russian-supplied anti-aircraft defenses. Also, the North Vietnamese killed far more civilians with napalm (via flamethrowers). You are a typical, emotional, uninformed, illogical lefty.

I'm confident that at a minimum, Israel would honor its obligations under the NATO treaty. (of course, unlike Italy and the UK, it has no such obligations).

"If you look at pictures from the six day war, you'll notice that the IDF used a lot of american tanks and half-tracks."

Were these sold or given outright?

In any event, I will be happy to concede that the US has and does give military aid to Israel. This does not undermine my point:

The US actually defends certain other countries. (I am using the word "defend" in the ordinary sense). Not only that, the US has publicly announced that attacks on certain other countries would be treated like attacks on the US. The US has done none of this for Israel.

"the belief by gentiles that Jews may be criticized like any other group."

That's 100% true if one assumes that all groups are regularly accused of bringing about the the downfall of Western Culture.

Jews cavil at being accused of merely sympathizing with a Jewish state...their histrionics is deployed indiscriminately, like the shotgun blasts of a hillbilly on moonshine...they whine endlessly and often about microscopic slights...as you demonstrate in your calculatedly mendacious comments here

question: is your pretense otherwise chauvinism-induced blindness or just a bluff for the naifs who might be reading?

"So let's see if I have this straight: Any country to which the US sells military equipment is a country that the US "defends."

Do you I understand you correctly?"

The military doesn't SELL Israel equipment. The U.S. GIVES Israel a foreign aid allowance to pay for the U.S.-built hardware.

But, yeah, irregardless, selling military hardware can certainly be looked at as a form of providing a defense. U.S. has routinely refused to sell military hardware to enemies -- because we don't want to provide them with their means of defense.

***I still don't get it. How does not having a mutual-defense treaty with Israel make it ok for US-born, US-citizen Jews to serve in the IDF?

"Michelle Goldberg (who is Jewish) frames the issue as Jewish organizations 'supporting' 'the Bush administration's" stance on Iraq -- as opposed to the reality of their being the architects behind it.'

Last [ WWII Sherman iteration/model/] type in U.S. service: M4A3E8 Sherman used as artillery in firing position during the Korean War (photo)

After World War II, the U.S. kept the M4A3E8 Easy Eight in service with either the 76 mm gun or a 105 mm howitzer. The Sherman remained a common U.S. tank in the Korean War. Despite no longer being the primary US tank it fought alongside the M26 Pershing and M46 Patton. The M4A3E8 outperformed the T-34/85 in Korea. Both the Sherman and T-34 were comparable and could destroy each other when hit. The Sherman however had the edge because of its better optics which gave it a better chance of scoring a first round hit.[28] ( Dunno about the Sherman's better range finder being its sole advatange. -- DD )

The Army replaced them with Pattons during the 1950s. The U.S. continued to transfer Shermans to its allies, which contributed to widespread foreign use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

Israeli Shermans:

In 1953, an Israeli delegation visited France to examine the new AMX 13 light tank. The tank was armed with a high-velocity 75 mm gun CN 75-50, a development of the German 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 (used in the Panther tank). While the gun was satisfactory, the armor of the French tank was considered too light. Eventually, Israel purchased the AMX 13, however in a parallel development it was decided to graft the powerful French gun onto the available, familiar and better-armored hull of the American M4 Sherman, the standard tank of the IDF armored units in the early 1950s.[1]

Both the M-50 and M-51 [ further upgraded Shermans ] saw combat in the Six-Day War that left the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Sinai peninsula in Israeli hands, often fighting Soviet World War II-era armor like the T-34-85 (for example at the Battle of Abu-Ageila). Both were also employed in the 1973 Yom Kippur War alongside and against much more modern tanks. The use of such seemingly obsolete tanks was necessary given the desperate nature of the fighting.

In combat against the Arab armies, the M-51 proved itself capable of fighting newer, heavier tanks like the Soviet-built T-54/55. The M-51's 105 mm gun could penetrate these adversaries using HEAT ammunition. The M-51 served well during its time, and is regarded as an excellent example of how an obsolete tank (the Sherman) can be upgraded beyond the limits of its original capabilities[12].

Last [ WWII Sherman iteration/model/] type in U.S. service: M4A3E8 Sherman used as artillery in firing position during the Korean War (photo)

After World War II, the U.S. kept the M4A3E8 Easy Eight in service with either the 76 mm gun or a 105 mm howitzer. The Sherman remained a common U.S. tank in the Korean War. Despite no longer being the primary US tank it fought alongside the M26 Pershing and M46 Patton. The M4A3E8 outperformed the T-34/85 in Korea. Both the Sherman and T-34 were comparable and could destroy each other when hit. The Sherman however had the edge because of its better optics which gave it a better chance of scoring a first round hit.[28] ( Dunno about the Sherman's better range finder being its sole advatange. -- DD )

The Army replaced them with Pattons during the 1950s. The U.S. continued to transfer Shermans to its allies, which contributed to widespread foreign use.

In 1953, an Israeli delegation visited France to examine the new AMX 13 light tank. The tank was armed with a high-velocity 75 mm gun CN 75-50, a development of the German 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 (used in the Panther tank). While the gun was satisfactory, the armor of the French tank was considered too light. Eventually, Israel purchased the AMX 13, however in a parallel development it was decided to graft the powerful French gun onto the available, familiar and better-armored hull of the American M4 Sherman, the standard tank of the IDF armored units in the early 1950s.[1]

Both the M-50 and M-51 [ further upgraded Shermans ] saw combat in the Six-Day War that left the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Sinai peninsula in Israeli hands, often fighting Soviet World War II-era armor like the T-34-85 (for example at the Battle of Abu-Ageila). Both were also employed in the 1973 Yom Kippur War alongside and against much more modern tanks. The use of such seemingly obsolete tanks was necessary given the desperate nature of the fighting.

In combat against the Arab armies, the M-51 proved itself capable of fighting newer, heavier tanks like the Soviet-built T-54/55. The M-51's 105 mm gun could penetrate these adversaries using HEAT ammunition. The M-51 served well during its time, and is regarded as an excellent example of how an obsolete tank (the Sherman) can be upgraded beyond the limits of its original capabilities[12].

"The high schools of New York City, from which, when they were largely Jewish, suspiciously few students of high achievement gained admission, were now replaced by the high schools of the New York suburbs to which Jews had moved, Great Neck and Scarsdale and so on. These schools now discovered that it was hard for their best students to gain admission to Harvard. It was in 1969 or 1970 that a group of Jewish faculty members met with Harvard's director of admissions to ask why this was so. Well, he told us, there is this donut around New York that produces so many good students that they would dominate the college if admissions were to be made on the basis of academic merit, without regard to geographical and sociological diversity. ('The donut, or the bagel?' asked Henry Rosovsky, shortly to become an admired and effective dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.) "

"Well, how come U.S. gives so much foreign aid in the form of military hardware to *Israel*? "

I would guess it's a combination of cold war inertia; the fact that the US does not defend Israel with actual men; lobbying by pro-Israel Jewish groups; lobbying by pro-Israel Christians; lobbying by defense contractors who get billions in sales out of the deal; and lobbying by defense contractors who benefit from being able to prevent Israel from selling its own military hardware.

Now please adress my question:

Are you aware that the US has committed itself to defend Italy and the UK if attacked but has made no such commitment to Israel?

Are you aware that the US has sent hundreds of thousands of men to defend Israel's enemies Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

j"It's just a way of underlining the irrelevance of Mr. Anon's claim."

I'm slow. Explain it to me.

This whole argument started with AmGoy making the point that American Jews have excessive affinity for Israel, to the point of treason.

You tried to whitewash it by asking, if Polish Americans or Italian-Americans or Irish-Americans had affinity, would that make them treasonous?The answer you were given was, if the affinity were excessive enough, yeah. If the Irish were as treasonously affinitive as the American Jews, we'd have gone to war with England by now.

So then you interjected something about mutual defense treaties or lack thereof with Italy vs. Israel.

We pointed out that U.S. DOES provide Israel with defense in the form of military hardware gifts (they are gifts because US gives Israel an allowance to pay our defense contractors with.)

So you claim Mr. Anon's point is irrelevant.

I'm headscratching here.

HOW does all this justify U.S.- born U.S. citizen Jews serving in the IDF?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for those links in regards to this Ivy League "geographic diversity" (aka de facto Affirmative Action for Whites in flyover country to the detriment of New York Jewish kids) admissions policy you claim.

I could not care less about college admissions habits in regards to Jews in 1960 or '70.

I want links to show me that the Ivies are giving Affirmative-Action-style preferences to Whites of EuroChristian heritage in flyover country as of now, today. I want those links so I can access this purported White Affirmative Action for my boy.

"Do you think the US has any obligation to give military hardware to Israel?"

No of course not. Nor does the US have obligation to spend billions of dollars and send hundreds of thousands of men to defend places like Saudi Arabia. Heck, there is nothing to stop the US from withdrawing from the NATO treaty.

The correct answer to what Jews are like is "all of the above" --both what they promote about themselves and what their critics ( many of them emerging from being born Jewish) say. It is, then, a matter of weighing and sorting from rational , if vigorous, disputation. As long as any cognizance of Jewish shortcomings and perversity is deemed anti-Semitic, the process as a national discussion will never get off the ground. I have no reason to believe that Nixon was guilty of anything other than an awareness about all this and that in private conversations he had the latitude to implement it. Sin???

"I want links to show me that the Ivies are giving Affirmative-Action-style preferences to Whites of EuroChristian heritage in flyover country as of now, today. "

I'm not sure about the white part, but I do believe that all things being equal, a rancher's daughter in Montana will have a better chance at Ivy League admission than a Lawyer's daughter in Scarsdale.

I can try to find a more current cite, but first please represent to me that you are seriously skeptical about my claim.

"When those Group X voters vote 70, 80, 90% for that Senator and send their money donations to groups that lobby for amnesty, an amnesty that will indeed bring the downfall, then, yeah."

I'm not sure I understand your criteria. Are you saying that each Jewish senator gets 70 to 90% of the Jewish vote? And are you saying that 70 to 90% of Jews in America donate money to groups which lobby for amnesty?

The first part seems remotely possible to me; the second seems unlikely. I'm seriously skeptical about both and would like to see cites.

I'm not sure about the white part, but I do believe that all things being equal, a rancher's daughter in Montana will have a better chance at Ivy League admission than a Lawyer's daughter in Scarsdale."

Gee, it's nice that you "believe" that. I'm sure you "believe" lots of things that are both 1.) wrong, and 2.) entirely irrelevant to you personally.

"'Well, how come U.S. gives so much foreign aid in the form of military hardware to *Israel*? '"

Now that I have attempted to answer this question, maybe someone would like to explain why the US spends (or has spent) a lot of money on equipment and manpower to defend Italy. Same question for the UK, Germany, South Korea, Japan, France, and Saudi Arabia.

Now that I have attempted to answer this question, maybe someone would like to explain why the US spends (or has spent) a lot of money on equipment and manpower to defend Italy. Same question for the UK, Germany, South Korea, Japan, France, and Saudi Arabia."

The defence of Europe (America's cultural birthplace), cold-war advantage, oil, foreign bases. Israel gave us some cold-war advantage, but none of the other reasons apply. And in case you hadn't noticed, a lot of people here aren't too keen on defending those other countries, especially Saudi Arabia which is no friend or ally as far as I'm concerned.

It's ironic that on Christmas Eve you would ignore the fact that a very significant part of American culture originated in Palestine.

I think it's fair to say that Palestine has had more influence on modern American culture than France.

"oil"

As noted above, the oil would have kept flowing even without Desert Shield or Desert Storm. Besides, the oil justification does not apply to East Asia or Europe.

"foreign bases. "

Actually the US has a small base in Israel, the Dimona Radar Facility. And I'm pretty confident the Israelis would not object if the US wanted to have a large base there. Of course, if that happened, the anti-Semites would whine more not less.

"And in case you hadn't noticed, a lot of people here aren't too keen on defending those other countries,"

And do those same people complain just as frequently about US defense of Italy as they do about US aid to Israel? My general impression is "no."

It's ironic that on Christmas Eve you would ignore the fact that a very significant part of American culture originated in Palestine."

It's not ironic. The part of western civilization that originated in Palestine was rejected by the people among whom it rose. The particulars of that time, place, and people are really no more relevant to western civilization than is Indian civilization to modern practicing Bhuddists.

Again, everything comes down to Israel for you, doesn't it? Can't you just accept the fact that a lot of us just don't care about Israel? Do we have to?

"And do those same people complain just as frequently about US defense of Italy as they do about US aid to Israel? My general impression is "no."

Well, we smashed Italy, and Germany, and Japan in WWII and told them they can't have their own army, as part of their surrender terms, that we would provide their defense. Today they do have militaries, but limited in what they're allowed to do.So until we renegotiate treaties to completely butt out of telling Germany, Italy and Japan what they're allowed to do, we're stuck carrying out our obligations to them.

Since the Jews are quite nervous about the rise of Anti-semitism and a German (and Axis Powers,) resurgence of ambitions of world domination in general, allowing the Axis countries to completely tend to their own militaries is a non-starter.

"As noted above, the oil would have kept flowing even without Desert Shield or Desert Storm."

Are you five? Are you really this naive how the oil market affects geopolitics?

The oil price is not only set by real shortages, but by the panicked bid-up of prices by oil traders in ANTICIPATION of possible shortages.

War causes shortages because pipelines get smashed and oil tankers get blown up.

Oil traders bid up prices anytime they get nervous about such things because they get into hoarding mode for currently-available supplies so they've got them in case actual shortages come to pass.

But those panic-driven price spikes, even when irrational, nevertheless get passed on to people at the pump. And as the recent runup to oil $150 shows, our economy cannot STAND price spikes.

So the only way to have cheap gas prices at the pump is to keep the market very, very calm. That means fielding a big military to give those nervous traders CONFIDENCE that the oil WILL keep flowing.

We Americans have been told we have to give military hardware to Israel and be its special friend so that we have "an unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the Mideast. But we've NEVER used this "unsinkable aircraft carrier." Just the opposite. During Gulf War I and II, we dared NOT use Israel, lest the Arabs go apeshit and bomb Israel. Our sorties were flown out of Turkey, etc.So what good is Israel to US?

"Same question for the UK, Germany, South Korea, Japan, France, and Saudi Arabia."

All NATO countries, mutual defense pact. So at least, for all our spending, we get for ourselves the obligation FROM them to come to OUR aid if attacked. Which Israel, we've established, has zero obligation to do.

Japan -- answered in post above, we are obligated due to WWII surrender terms.

Saudi Arabia -- answered above about the oil market.

South Korea? FIIK. As soon as you and AIPAC get with me about turning the spigot to Israel off, I'll get with you about shutting it off for SKorea.

"So the only way to have cheap gas prices at the pump is to keep the market very, very calm."

If the US had not challenged Iraq, things surely would have calmed down after a while. Heck, under your approach, we should have simply defended the status quo, i.e. defend Suadi Arabia but not challenge Iraq's claim to Kuwait.

Anyway, let me ask you this: If a war breaks out in the Middle East which poses a serious threat to Israel, what do you suppose will happen to oil prices?

""So until we renegotiate treaties to completely butt out of telling Germany, Italy and Japan what they're allowed to do, we're stuck carrying out our obligations to them."

So if the US/Israel relationship is memorialized in a formal treaty, the military aid is okay with you?"

You are astoundingly disingenuous. No, we don't want to be on the hook for military aid, ergo, we would not want a treaty.

"Would this whining go away if the US signed a formal treaty with Israel? I kinda doubt it."

There is plenty of "whining", as you call it, on this board about American committments all over the globe, and about foreign influence on American policy from a variety of places - not just from Israel and it's boosters, but from Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and others. If it only appears to be directed against Israel, it is because that is all you care about. You don't even seem to notice when someone is generally on your side - unless agreement with you is total, it isn't good enough.

By the way, but you have conceded our point that Israel has always recieved military assistance from the U.S. You probably had not noticed this as your arguments constantly shape-shift. You are petty (always have to get the last word in, don't you, even in a week old post that's on the "older posts page") and dishonest.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.